Roach v The Queen

This case concerned an appeal by the appellant, Roach, against his conviction for assault occasioning bodily harm. The central dispute revolved around the admissibility of evidence detailing a history of assaults by the appellant upon the complainant during their relationship. This evidence was admitted at trial pursuant to section 132B of the *Evidence Act 1977* (Qld), which makes relevant evidence of the history of a domestic relationship admissible in criminal proceedings. The High Court of Australia was required to determine whether the rule established in *Pfennig v The Queen* was applicable to the admissibility of evidence under section 132B, or to the exercise of the trial judge's discretion under section 130 of the *Evidence Act 1977* (Qld) to exclude unfairly prejudicial evidence.

The High Court considered the operation of sections 132B and 130 of the *Evidence Act 1977* (Qld). Section 132B provides for the admissibility of relevant evidence of the history of a domestic relationship in certain criminal proceedings, including assault occasioning bodily harm. Section 130 preserves the court's general discretion to exclude evidence if its admission would be unfair to the accused. The appellant argued that the *Pfennig* rule, which sets a high threshold for the admissibility of propensity evidence, should have been applied.

The Court reasoned that section 132B of the *Evidence Act 1977* (Qld) governs the admissibility of evidence of domestic violence, and that the sole criterion for admissibility under this section is relevance. Therefore, the stringent test for propensity evidence established in *Pfennig* was not applicable to the initial determination of admissibility under section 132B. The Court affirmed that while the evidence admitted was indeed propensity evidence, its admissibility was secured by section 132B, which specifically permits such evidence in the context of domestic relationships. The Court also considered the discretion under section 130, but found no error in its exercise by the trial judge. The appeal was dismissed.